I think we should trust Aris on this because he has more experience, but we could still experiment with the concept through agencies or orgs. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:05 PM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> In order to break this "critical mass" of activity, I suggest dividing the >> game into three (simplified) sub-nomics, and have them each develop as their >> own Province. >> >> There has been precedence of Agora having a similar "divide" (the Blots and >> such), although this would be making the slices in a different way. Perhaps >> it helps. (Also, this is personal interest, but I would love to see >> differences in 'axiomatic' perspectives in each one and see how each >> mini-Agora develops.) >> >> This is also inspired in the BLO vs GNO vs MIC dynasty of Blognomic: >> https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Metadynasty which >> seemed to be one of the more interesting ones, and we have the amount of >> players to make it work. >> >> This definitely qualifies for "radical" ideal though, and as ais has pointed >> out, may not work. But I figure it would be good to put this out anyway, for >> consideration. > > **Very strong oppose.** Everyone, please note ais523's warning "It's > interesting to note that at times of lower activity, when there isn't > a functioning economy, players tend to make wild and drastic changes > to the rules in the hope that there'll be more to discuss. This nearly > always backfires and leaves the mailing lists dead for months at a > time." I'd like very much to avoid that happening. Agora is the most > active it's been in years, and while we're going through some growing > pains, I strongly doubt this would fix anything. It seems like it > would be more likely just to make everything a chaotic mess, and/or > convince all of our remaining experienced players to leave. > > -Aris
